Abstract
This is the first Editorial I am writing for Language Teaching Research (LTR). For the past five years I have been assistant editor, but at the beginning of 2012 I was appointed co-editor with Rod Ellis. Working together over the years we have read many manuscripts. All articles are submitted to me. After a close reading, I pass them onto Rod. We then meet to discuss each one and decide what the next step in the review process should be. A number of articles are rejected at this stage and thus not sent out for further review, for one or more of the following reasons:
Studies do not focus on language teaching (the LT part of LTR). Some that focus on language learning, for example, may have a pedagogical implications section towards the end of the article, but we feel this is not sufficiently LT.
Articles are not empirical (the R part) (although we do sometimes publish conceptual or survey types of articles).
Even though a study may be well designed and the report well written, the article does not say anything new or interesting, either in terms of the methodology, the findings or theoretical development.
Articles do not have an appropriate balance of the various sections. Those based on dissertations, for instance, often have a disproportionately long literature review section.
Articles are pilot studies, small-scale exploratory studies or term papers, which are unlikely to be of sufficient scale and conclusiveness for publication in an international journal.
Articles are poorly written, formatted, organized or proofread. In other words, they are not well presented. Some are also far over the 8,000 word limit.
Rod and I usually agree quite readily on what we mean by teaching, and we have his Editorial of Vol. 15(1), 2011 to guide us. In this Editorial, he outlines the parameters we use to establish whether or not a submitted article is LT enough for inclusion in LTR. We also usually agree on what research is and, even though generally our own research practices differ somewhat, we seldom need to debate the legitimacy or suitability of any particular methodological approach. In other words, we welcome reports on studies that demonstrate a wide range of epistemologies, research traditions, and methods of data collection and analysis.
We had no problems deciding that the five articles in this issue were suitable for LTR. First, they all clearly focus on aspects of language teaching. Farley, Ramonda and Liu’s study, for example, investigated vocabulary teaching, specifically the effects of attaching visual imagery to abstract words during instruction. Delaney’s study looked inside Japanese university EFL classrooms to see whether learners’ participation in whole-class discussions led to any gains in their English oral proficiency. Benson looked at the practicum experiences of two non-local, non-native English-speaking (NNESTs) pre-service teachers from mainland China in Hong Kong schools. Swanson also studied the experiences of teachers, this time a large sample of North American language teachers. His aim was to examine the compatibility of their vocational interests with their work environments. Abbuhl investigated the effect of explicit instruction on the ability of non-native speakers of English studying at university to use two signals of authorial presence (first person pronouns and self-referential third person pronouns/phrases) while writing essays. Teachers and teaching, then, are covered in these four articles, and they thus avoided rejection based on point number 1 above.
Second, all five articles are reports of original research, describing studies that followed a wide variety of sometimes quite innovative methodological approaches. Farley, Ramonda and Liu’s study included a biographical questionnaire, a pretest, the treatment (consisting of a series of PowerPoint slides as the medium of instruction), an immediate posttest and a delayed posttest, as well as a posttest questionnaire. Delaney also used a pre-treatment measure of proficiency and a background questionnaire. He recorded the quality and quantity of oral production in the whole-class discussions by using audio and video recorders (learners were also asked to do some homework to prepare for the discussions, and were given the opportunity to do some pair-work as a warm-up in class before the discussions began). A post-measure of English oral proficiency was administered. Benson observed the two pre-service teachers three times each in their practicum classes, and conducted short pre- and post-observation interviews. In addition, he conducted two narrative interviews with them separately before the practicum experience and then once together shortly before they graduated. Abbuhl’s participants were divided into two proficiency groups, which were in turn divided into instruction and control groups. These groups were further divided into two groups, which received different types of essay writing instruction (in terms of authorial presence). Two essay writing tasks, stimulated recall and a post quiz recorded their writing performance. Swanson’s study is distinctly quantitative. Four hundred and ten language teachers in North America completed the two commercial survey instruments as well as a short demographic sheet. The data analytical procedures, described in the five articles, are those compatible with the data-collection methods employed. Being clearly empirical, the five articles avoided rejection based on point number 2 above.
Finally, the articles report findings that are both interesting and new. Farley, Ramonda and Liu’s study tells readers that meaning recall of abstract words can indeed be facilitated by using metaphorical, emotive or symbolic imagery. Delaney’s study shows that the quality of participation in whole-class discussions was positively related to gains in English oral ability, whereas the quantity was not. Benson reports that his teacher participants struggled to construct authoritative identities as English teachers in the context of discourses that primarily validate the status of native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) and local NNESTs in Hong Kong. Abbuhl found that instructed students used significantly more of the target signal of authorial presence in their essays than did the non-instructed students, regardless of their level of proficiency. Swanson’s findings suggest complex relationships among teachers’ sense of self-efficacy, their social interests and competencies, and their ability to cope in stressful situations. Those who feel supported and sufficiently rewarded in their work environments tend to remain in the language teaching profession. All five articles conclude with important and useful implications for others in the field. Point number 3 above was not a problem for these articles.
Points number 4, 5 and 6 were also successfully avoided by the authors of the five articles. Although points 1–3 are the major reasons for early in-house rejection of new submissions, points 4–6 are becoming increasingly pertinent for establishing whether or not manuscripts are to be forwarded to external reviewers. This is so mainly because of the large number of submissions that we receive and the excellent quality of many of them. We therefore encourage authors to carefully review their articles in terms of points 1–6 above before submission.